Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

‘Obama’s challenge’ is logically challenged

Letter to the Editor

Published: Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Updated: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 21:11

 

It was with great sadness and dismay that I read last week's letter "Obama's greatest challenge" by Gonzaga student John Emery. Sadness, because of the classic anti-Semitic tropes and dismay that a university with an Institution of Hate Studies would choose to publish so provocative and slanderous a letter.

The ignorance of Mr. Emery's missive is apparent from the first paragraph "Israel's upcoming invasion of Iran." How a country of 7 million people one-eighth the size of Washington state, can invade a country of 74 million the size of Alaska at a distance of at least 800 miles is not entirely clear.

The illogic then continues by assigning blame to a recent Iranian attempt to blow up a restaurant containing the Saudi ambassador not to Iran, but of course to the Jewish state. Albeit amateurish, both Secretary of State Clinton and Attorney General Holder announced that the plot was "directed and approved by elements of the Iranian government and, specifically, senior members of the Quds Force." That one of America's closest allies is responsible rather than a country that is killing American forces daily in Iraq may only be apparent to one well versed in the devious nature of World Zionism, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Trilateral Commission and groups so nefarious that I cannot mention their names.

Unperturbed by logic, Mr. Emery then resurrects the ancient slander of Jews as puppet masters. In his telling, after an Israeli attack on Iran, "Our congressmen and women, along with senators, would forget all our partisan differences and rush to support Israel." Why forgetting partisan differences is a bad thing I'm not sure, but Mr. Emery also states that, "It would engulf us in another Middle East war."

Finally, he helpfully points out that an attack would "threaten the existence of the state of Israel." His concern is touching, but I believe he failed to cite the original quote from the Sportpalast: "And we say that the war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation of the Jews."

Hate speech in the Inland Northwest may always be with us, but The Gonzaga Bulletin should not provide it a home. 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

6 comments

Anonymous
Tue Dec 27 2011 19:00
wow this is slightly harsh given the previous article. It does not seem appropriate to make accusations against Mr. Emery. It should be understood, especially by a professor, that as writers we gather information and voice our critiques/analyses/understandings of global political issues and it is dialogue and opposing viewpoints presented in a constructive matter that can enhance individual perspectives on different issues. Mr. Emery was purely stating his viewpoint based on information he gathered, and any opposing viewpoints should constructively engage Mr. Emery in dialogue that can help clarify his words, not accuse him of anti-semitism.
Anonymous
Tue Nov 22 2011 03:59
How a country of 7 million people one-eighth the size of Washington state, can invade a country of 74 million the size of Alaska at a distance of at least 800 miles is not entirely clear.

The argument is that they will strike Iran with either conventional or nuclear missiles. Israel has one of the most advanced military's in the world, and this is certainly possible, and maybe even likely.

Bryce Comstock
Mon Nov 21 2011 20:55
Too often criticism of Israel and some of its actions, both in foreign policy and its domestic policy, gets construed as antisemitic. America's unabashed support for Israel is by far the greatest stain on its international reputation. While clearly neither side is completely correct in its solution to the problem, hiding behind a veil of racism accusations goes quite a long way to stifling legitimate debate.
Sam Vial
Sun Nov 20 2011 20:36
I found this article to be as illogical as the article that inspired it. For starters, in the original article, the assassination attempt on the Saudi Ambassador was not blamed on Israel. The blame stays with the Iranian government. He even says that for Iran, this would not be such a stretch.

He mentions it to make the point that an attempted use of force by Iran on US soil would give credence to those politicians in the US who would support a war with Iran. And perhaps this increased possibility of support from the US would bolster those factions within Israel who would consider attacking Iran. Mr. Emery makes a good point early in his article proving that such factions do in fact exist in Israel.

Where Mr. Emory strays from the constraints of logic, and Dr. Lefcort makes a good criticism is in the second to last paragraph in Emory's article. The idea that Israeli lobbyists influence could somehow singlehandedly influence our country to go to war is absurd. As if they had some kind of mind control, or were "puppet masters," as Dr. Lefcort put it.

If America were to get involved in another war in the middle east, it would not be due to some sneaky foreign lobbyists whispering deception in our ear, but due to the blunder of our own home grown politicians. Xenophobia, fear of islam, or ironically to achieve what Mr. Emory listed as a possible consequence and to forget partisan differences all rank as more likely reasons our own politicians would push to support such a war.

Finally, I find it unlikely that the current administration would fall so easily into another foreign conflict (in the middle east or elsewhere) without good reason. I may not follow it as closely as some others, but my impression from headlines during his administration, is that Obama has in fact angered many Israeli officials by not giving them the unwavering support that they had come to expect from the US.

If I had the time, I feel this article could use its own critic in the next bulletin. If anyone has taken issue with what I've said. I'd like to hear you out. I'm not sure if this site would alert me to a following comment, so heres this: svial@zagmail.gonzaga.edu

Drew Pollom
Fri Nov 18 2011 16:41
@anonymous:

Hate is never acceptable. Period. The mere fact that you would say that it was acceptable towards any group is downright ignorant. BTW, "well you know the rest", what the heck does that mean?

Anonymous
Thu Nov 17 2011 00:23
Hate is acceptable if it is against Jews, Catholics, Pro-Life, Pro-traditional Marriage, and well, you know the rest. That is the way of the new world order and particular, the current administration in Washington DC, and especially the media.






log out